remnawave_get_config_profile

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context by specifying exactly what data is returned (full config, inbounds, nodes), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. There is no wasted text, and the key information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get-with-ID tool, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. It could mention that the UUID must be valid, but overall it is complete given the presence of an output schema and the readOnly annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (per context signals), the description does not add meaning beyond the schema's basic 'Config profile UUID'. It does not explain how to obtain the UUID or provide format details, leaving the agent without extra guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'config profile', and details the exact content returned (full raw XRay config JSON, registered inbounds with UUIDs, attached nodes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remnawave_list_config_profiles.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, mentioning 'FULL raw XRay config JSON' implies it is for detailed retrieval rather than listing. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool names are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.